• aidan@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Okay you can dismiss it, but how about I just show you what the constitution says:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

    The electors are determined by the state legislature. Same as what was intended of the senate.

    The South Carolina legislature even appointed their electors until 1860

    As Wikipedia says:

    Each state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      And by 1832 they were the only ones. States go back and forth for the first decade or so and then they all go in on elections.

      But that’s besides the point. This isn’t the Constitution telling us the governors will appoint electors. The people who wrote the document knew an appointment system could not and would not stand. That was why the conversation was Congress, the People’s will indirectly, or a popular vote directly. Throwing it to the state legislatures to officially decide was the compromise. The founding fathers didn’t even consider putting an appointment system for electors into the Constitution.

      I’m not even sure why you’re arguing this? Are you trying to argue that we should appoint electors now?

      • aidan@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That was why the conversation was Congress, the People’s will indirectly, or a popular vote directly.

        Source?

        The people who wrote the document knew an appointment system could not and would not stand.

        But they also knew some states would prefer it and may be reluctant to ratify if a popular vote were required.

        Throwing it to the state legislatures to officially decide was the compromise.

        How is that a compromise? Unless you mean because it gave the states the authority, which yk, is what I said.

        I’m not even sure why you’re arguing this? Are you trying to argue that we should appoint electors now?

        You said “At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president. It was either the people directly or the people indirectly.”

        Which is untrue. And again, the electoral college was intentionally designed to be a middle ground between “popular interest” and “state interest”- you falsely said “You’re thinking of the 3/5ths and the large state / small state compromises.”- which is not what I was thinking of.

        The number of electors states were given was guaranteed to be 4 + population. The 4 constant was for the same reason as the senate 2 constant, to fairly represent all states, + population was for the same reason as the house- to represent the population of the country as a whole.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The source is cited above. I’m not surprised you’ve ignored it though. You’re clearly trying to paint the EC as part of the House/Senate compromise when no evidence for that exists. Which is fairly consistent with GOP propaganda about ignoring the will of the people.

          • aidan@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The source is cited above. I’m not surprised you’ve ignored it though.

            No I read it. Just forgot since, you know, its been hours.

            You’re clearly trying to paint the EC as part of the House/Senate compromise when no evidence for that exists.

            Why would there be some pushing for the president to be nominated by congress?